US infantry Co remembers 9-11 shot from air

(Tigercat F7F) wrote in message ...
From: "E. A. Grens"

Well, said Ed! And I know I feel safer now that was have found and destroyed
all those WMD that were an imminent threat to "our way of life". We have
toppled Osma Hussian who supplied the murders for the airplanes and so far it
has only cost a mere 79 billion, well actually a a little more with the added
87 billion and more to come. But we have made our world safer, haven't we? We
have strengthened our ties with our European allies and we have shown we are a
responsible memember of the world community.

By Ann Coulter

Liberals are hopping mad about the war with Iraq. Showing the nuance
and complexity of thought liberals pride themselves on, they are
excitedly restating all the arguments they made before the war --
which arguments were soundly rejected by the American people, the U.S.
Congress and the Bush administration.

Before the war, they said Saddam Hussein -- their favorite world
leader behind Jacques Chirac -- was not a threat to America's
interests in the region, was not developing weapons of mass
destruction, and did not harbor terrorists. Now that we've taken the
country and are uncovering mass graves, canisters of poison gases,
victims of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and colonies of
terrorists, liberals are claiming the war created it all.

Thus, an op-ed piece in The New York Times recently proclaimed:
"America has taken a country that was not a terrorist threat and
turned it into one." This was written by Jessica Stern of the Harvard
Kennedy School of Government (Motto: "Where mediocre students pay
exorbitant sums to say they went to Harvard"). You can't win with
these people. The termites are swarming out into the light of day, and
liberals are blaming the exterminator.

Liberals simply refuse to consider thoughts that would interfere with
their lemming-like groupthink. They hold their hands over their ears
like little children who don't want to listen to mother.

Yes, perhaps there are important textural differences between secular
Saddam loyalists and Islamic crazies -- though it's a little odd to be
lectured on nuance from people who can grasp no difference whatsoever
between Bill O'Reilly and Jesse Helms. But as George Bush said: You
are with the terrorists or you are with America. Now we're getting a
pretty clear picture of who is with the terrorists. As George Patton
said, I like when the enemy shoots at me; then I know where the
*******s are and can kill them.

But liberals are indignant for every day that we haven't turned a
barbaric land into Vermont. They were willing to give Stalin 36 years
for the awkwardness of his revolution. We have essentially imposed a
revolution on Iraq -- and liberals give us a month to work out the
bugs. U.S. forces in Baghdad say that Iraq is well on its way to
establishing American-style representative democracy and might even be
holding its first free elections in less than a year. Within three
years the Iraqi people could be recalling their first governor.

Indeed, the war is going so well that now liberals have to create
absurd straw-man arguments no one ever uttered in order to accuse the
Bush administration of horrible miscalculations. Amid her sneering,
PMS-induced anger toward the Bush administration, New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd claimed the Bush administration was "shaken" to
discover "the terrible truth: Just because we got Odai and Qusai,
Iraqi militants are not going to stop blowing up Westerners." I'd love
to see the quote where anyone in the Bush administration -- anyone in
the universe -- said that.

Admittedly, Republicans were not mourning the deaths of Odai and Qusai
the way Democrats were, but only a moron would think that killing
these two monsters would mark the end of the war on terrorism.
Normandy didn't end World War II. That didn't make it a failure.
MacArthur was still in Tokyo straightening out Japan in 1950 -- five
years after V-J Day. Not only was Japan an advanced and ethnically
unified country, but U.S. forces also made things easier for MacArthur
by killing several million of the most militant anti-American Japanese
during World War II. Paul Bremer doesn't have this advantage in Iraq.
In fact, he has the reverse situation: Saddam killed the most
pro-American Iraqis before the war.

With all their pointless chitchat about Osama bin Laden, liberals of
all people ought to have known the war would not be over with the
deaths of Odai and Qusai. Speaking of which -- where is Osama? We
haven't heard much from him lately. Nor is Saddam Hussein out shaking
his puny fist at the Great Satan anymore. Concerned that he might try
to sneak out in disguise, U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been given
pictures of Saddam Hussein in various outfits, hairstyles and even
makeup schemes. (And I thought this was kind of interesting -- it
turns out he's a "winter.")

What is the point of liberal carping? What precisely are they
proposing we do? Turn tail and abandon Iraq to the mullahs and the
Syrians? Revert to the Democrats' tried-and-true method of abandoning
the region to any local Pol Pot who might turn up?

Clinton's statesmanlike response to Islamic fanatics was to do nothing
-- except when he needed to distract from his impeachment and would
suddenly start bombing foreign countries at random. In eight years,
the only domestic Muslim terrorist Clinton went after was a blind
cleric sitting outside a mosque in New Jersey behind a card table with
an "Ask Me About Terrorism" sign.

The Clinton approach was working great, if you don't count the first
bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of our Air Force
housing complex in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of our embassies in Kenya
and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole and, finally, the greatest
terrorist attack in the history of the world right here on U.S. soil
on Sept. 11, 2001.

We have seen how well the Democrats' surrender approach works for 50
years. We saw it again last week. The United Nations stood shoulder to
shoulder with American liberals, France, Germany and Saddam Hussein in
opposing war with Iraq. And then last week in Iraq, the little
darlings bombed the U.N. embassy in Baghdad. But that's Bush's fault,
too. Perhaps Bush is also responsible for J-Lo and Ben Affleck's bomb
of a movie. The only people whom liberals absolutely refuse to hold
accountable for anything are their friends, the Islamofascists.

Slingsby,

All your post did was remind me of how much of a CRACKPOT (or was that
crack-smoker) Ann Coulter is.

David Norinsky
A Concerned Patriotic American

"Slingsby" wrote in message
om...
(Tigercat F7F) wrote in message
...
From: "E. A. Grens"

Well, said Ed! And I know I feel safer now that was have found and
destroyed
all those WMD that were an imminent threat to "our way of life". We
have
toppled Osma Hussian who supplied the murders for the airplanes and so
far it
has only cost a mere 79 billion, well actually a a little more with the
added
87 billion and more to come. But we have made our world safer, haven't
we? We
have strengthened our ties with our European allies and we have shown we
are a
responsible memember of the world community.

By Ann Coulter

Liberals are hopping mad about the war with Iraq. Showing the nuance
and complexity of thought liberals pride themselves on, they are
excitedly restating all the arguments they made before the war --
which arguments were soundly rejected by the American people, the U.S.
Congress and the Bush administration.

Before the war, they said Saddam Hussein -- their favorite world
leader behind Jacques Chirac -- was not a threat to America's
interests in the region, was not developing weapons of mass
destruction, and did not harbor terrorists. Now that we've taken the
country and are uncovering mass graves, canisters of poison gases,
victims of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and colonies of
terrorists, liberals are claiming the war created it all.

Thus, an op-ed piece in The New York Times recently proclaimed:
"America has taken a country that was not a terrorist threat and
turned it into one." This was written by Jessica Stern of the Harvard
Kennedy School of Government (Motto: "Where mediocre students pay
exorbitant sums to say they went to Harvard"). You can't win with
these people. The termites are swarming out into the light of day, and
liberals are blaming the exterminator.

Liberals simply refuse to consider thoughts that would interfere with
their lemming-like groupthink. They hold their hands over their ears
like little children who don't want to listen to mother.

Yes, perhaps there are important textural differences between secular
Saddam loyalists and Islamic crazies -- though it's a little odd to be
lectured on nuance from people who can grasp no difference whatsoever
between Bill O'Reilly and Jesse Helms. But as George Bush said: You
are with the terrorists or you are with America. Now we're getting a
pretty clear picture of who is with the terrorists. As George Patton
said, I like when the enemy shoots at me; then I know where the
*******s are and can kill them.

But liberals are indignant for every day that we haven't turned a
barbaric land into Vermont. They were willing to give Stalin 36 years
for the awkwardness of his revolution. We have essentially imposed a
revolution on Iraq -- and liberals give us a month to work out the
bugs. U.S. forces in Baghdad say that Iraq is well on its way to
establishing American-style representative democracy and might even be
holding its first free elections in less than a year. Within three
years the Iraqi people could be recalling their first governor.

Indeed, the war is going so well that now liberals have to create
absurd straw-man arguments no one ever uttered in order to accuse the
Bush administration of horrible miscalculations. Amid her sneering,
PMS-induced anger toward the Bush administration, New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd claimed the Bush administration was "shaken" to
discover "the terrible truth: Just because we got Odai and Qusai,
Iraqi militants are not going to stop blowing up Westerners." I'd love
to see the quote where anyone in the Bush administration -- anyone in
the universe -- said that.

Admittedly, Republicans were not mourning the deaths of Odai and Qusai
the way Democrats were, but only a moron would think that killing
these two monsters would mark the end of the war on terrorism.
Normandy didn't end World War II. That didn't make it a failure.
MacArthur was still in Tokyo straightening out Japan in 1950 -- five
years after V-J Day. Not only was Japan an advanced and ethnically
unified country, but U.S. forces also made things easier for MacArthur
by killing several million of the most militant anti-American Japanese
during World War II. Paul Bremer doesn't have this advantage in Iraq.
In fact, he has the reverse situation: Saddam killed the most
pro-American Iraqis before the war.

With all their pointless chitchat about Osama bin Laden, liberals of
all people ought to have known the war would not be over with the
deaths of Odai and Qusai. Speaking of which -- where is Osama? We
haven't heard much from him lately. Nor is Saddam Hussein out shaking
his puny fist at the Great Satan anymore. Concerned that he might try
to sneak out in disguise, U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been given
pictures of Saddam Hussein in various outfits, hairstyles and even
makeup schemes. (And I thought this was kind of interesting -- it
turns out he's a "winter.")

What is the point of liberal carping? What precisely are they
proposing we do? Turn tail and abandon Iraq to the mullahs and the
Syrians? Revert to the Democrats' tried-and-true method of abandoning
the region to any local Pol Pot who might turn up?

Clinton's statesmanlike response to Islamic fanatics was to do nothing
-- except when he needed to distract from his impeachment and would
suddenly start bombing foreign countries at random. In eight years,
the only domestic Muslim terrorist Clinton went after was a blind
cleric sitting outside a mosque in New Jersey behind a card table with
an "Ask Me About Terrorism" sign.

The Clinton approach was working great, if you don't count the first
bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of our Air Force
housing complex in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of our embassies in Kenya
and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole and, finally, the greatest
terrorist attack in the history of the world right here on U.S. soil
on Sept. 11, 2001.

We have seen how well the Democrats' surrender approach works for 50
years. We saw it again last week. The United Nations stood shoulder to
shoulder with American liberals, France, Germany and Saddam Hussein in
opposing war with Iraq. And then last week in Iraq, the little
darlings bombed the U.N. embassy in Baghdad. But that's Bush's fault,
too. Perhaps Bush is also responsible for J-Lo and Ben Affleck's bomb
of a movie. The only people whom liberals absolutely refuse to hold
accountable for anything are their friends, the Islamofascists.

"JJ Sinclair" wrote...
From a guy that flew a combat tour in 1968, I can tell you it is very
demoralizing to lose a squadron mate and then read about the crap that was
going on back home in the states. Our troops are doing the bidding of their
government. If you don't like what is going on, then send a letter to the
president and members of congress. Don't put down the troops over there doing
what we (US and British) government sent them to do.

JJ, can you provide a quote from a single email in this thread where anyone
(including myself) criticized the troops in Iraq?

"David Norinsky" wrote in message om...
Slingsby,

All your post did was remind me of how much of a CRACKPOT (or was that
crack-smoker) Ann Coulter is.

David Norinsky
A Concerned Patriotic American

Yeah, she is a real lunatic.



At least Saddam wasn't at Tailhook!
Ann Coulter

April 17, 2003

Despite liberals' calm assurance that Iraq wasn't harboring
terrorists, this week Abul Abbas, mastermind of the 1985 Achille Lauro
hijacking, was captured in Baghdad. This is the second time the United
States has caught Abbas. But the last time, the Europeans let him go.
That's why liberals are so eager to have Europeans "help" with the war
on terrorism. They did a bang-up job last time.

In 1985, Muslim terrorists hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille
Lauro and threatened to kill the passengers and crew unless 50
imprisoned Palestinians were released by Israel. The terrorists doused
American and British women with gasoline and taunted them with
matches. They forced passengers to hold live grenades. When their
demands were not met, the terrorists shot a wheelchair-bound American,
Leon Klinghoffer, and forced other passengers at gunpoint to throw him
overboard in his wheelchair.

Even as the Americans were preparing a rescue mission, the Italian and
Egyptian governments made a deal with the terrorists, offering the
release of the Palestinians and safe passage to Egypt to end the
ordeal. The Europeans were delighted with this masterful act of
diplomacy. The Americans were not so pleased.

Oliver North conceived of an operation to get the terrorists back.
Contrary to Egyptian president Mubarak's assurances that the
terrorists had already left Egypt, North found out the terrorists were
still there. Indeed, working with Israeli intelligence, North
determined the precise EgyptAir 737 that would carry the terrorists
out of Egypt, even down to the flight number. He wanted to intercept
the flight, modeling the operation on the extraordinary World War II
interception of Yamamoto, mastermind of Pearl Harbor.

President Reagan was briefed on the daring plan – along with copious
warnings from timorous State Department officials that the Europeans
might have their feelings bruised, America would look like a cowboy,
and it would only strengthen the hard-liners in Egypt. Asked if the
operation should proceed, Reagan said: "Good God! They've murdered an
American here. Let's get on with it."

Adm. Frank Kelso, the officer in charge of America's Sixth Fleet in
the Mediterranean, ordered his men to carry out the mission. In no
time flat, Tomcat fighters had taken off from the U.S. aircraft
carrier Saratoga. After refueling in midair and guided by Hawkeyes,
the Tomcats caught up with the EgyptAir flight. The fighters
stealthily trailed their target for a while in total darkness, their
lights off, even in the cockpit. Then the Tomcats swooped in on the
EgyptAir flight, surrounded the plane, and forced it to land at a NATO
base on Sicily controlled by the United States.

The New York Post headline the next day was: "GOT 'EM." Reagan said:
"I salute the Navy."

And then Abul Abbas was released by the Europeans – whom liberals
insist on approval from in this war. Abbas dashed to safety in Iraq
under Saddam Hussein – whom liberals have assured us was not harboring
terrorists. Republican presidents keep catching terrorists while
liberals keep sending them back.

If there is a parable of how liberals support the enemy, this is it.
Adm. Kelso, whose men carried out the dauntless EgyptAir interception,
was cashiered out of the Navy because of "Tailhook." Feminists don't
care about Saddam Hussein and his rape rooms. But they were hopping
mad at Adm. Kelso for walking through the Tailhook convention to say
hello to his boys – boys who captured Leon Klinghoffer's murderers.

To jog the memory of the horror that was Tailhook, Lt. Paula Coughlin
was the officer who made the most lurid allegations, accusing a black
Marine of molesting her. But then she kept identifying different black
males as the perpetrator. Liberals managed to put their concern for
racist accusations against blacks on the back burner in this one case.
When liberals get going, the ironies never end.

Though Adm. Kelso was cleared of any wrongdoing after an official Navy
investigation, liberals wanted him punished. Former Rep. Patricia
Schroeder, D-Colo., engaged in a hysterical witchhunt of Kelso,
marching with her fellow termagants to the Senate to encourage them to
deny Kelso retirement with four stars. Naturally, the New York Times
editorialized against him.

After a lifetime of honorable service to his country, Adm. Kelso was
barely permitted to retire with four stars, in a 54-43 Senate vote. A
majority of Democrats opposed Kelso, along with all the Republican
women in the Senate – Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
Arlen Specter, Bob Packwood and so on. Had the Senate denied him his
retirement with four stars, this American hero would have received a
pension of $67,000 per year, rather than the princely sum of $84,000
per year given a four-star admiral.

The left's relentless attacks on Oliver North hardly require
elaboration. He was endlessly investigated, charged with crimes,
indicted by Lawrence Walsh, and his Senate campaign destroyed. Al Gore
compared North's supporters to Down syndrome children.

Now liberals are demanding that the Europeans be let into Iraq so they
can release some more terrorists, while liberals do their part at
home, carving up the colonels and admirals who capture people who
murder Americans.

I am damned angry at what the Bush
administration is doing to this country (including putting troops in harms
way
based on crackpot-quality intelligence

Marc, don't you read the papers, Bush has "pretty darn good intelligence," and
Blair must have jolly good intelligence. I was not sure if he was speaking of
information or defending his less than spectacular academic achievements.

Owain Walters wrote in message ...
I am not sure Ann Coulter is the only crackpot around........

Slingsby - Please do not confuse debate against Government
policy with denouncing troops doing a job that they
have been told to do.

The US is relatively new to dealing with terrorism
and quite frankley it shows. Many countries have dealt
with this; for instance the UK has dealt with the IRA
and other such group bombing and maiming innocents.
Deploying more and more troops just hardened the nationalists
views. In order to obtain peace we now have the same
people in our government.

You can not beat terrorism by force. Diplomacy, understanding
and altering foreign policy is the only way around
it.
Remember that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom
fighter.

The key phrase in your statement is "dealing with terrorism."
Countries in Western Europe deal with it by acceptance. Eastern
European
countries dealt with it by becoming enslaved. The Muslim countries
are experimenting with a balance between those two models. Prior to
World
War II the only voice in the British government warning of German
hegemony
was a crackpot half-American. He went on to lead you through "your
darkest
hour" until the Americans and their equipment showed up. After the
war, he
was cast off as an unsophisticated half-American crackpot. Lucky for
him,
he could frequently come over here where he was well respected, people
filled auditoriums to hear him speak and his fortune was restored.

January 31, 2003

War-torn Democrats

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was looking a little glum Tuesday night.
Last week Kerry gave a speech saying: "Mr. President, do not rush to
war!" Rush to war? We've been talking about this war for a year. It's
been three months since Kerry duly recorded his vote in favor of
forcibly removing Saddam Hussein.

In 1991, Kerry voted against the Gulf War, saying the country was "not
yet ready for what it will witness and bear if we go to war." Having
been taunted for that vote and that prediction ever since, this time
Kerry made sure to vote in favor of war with Iraq. This will allow the
New York Times to describe him as a "moderate Democrat" forevermore.
Indeed, a surprisingly large number of Democrats voted for the war
resolution last October. But as soon as the November elections were
over, Democrats like Kerry began aggressively attacking the very war
they had just voted for.

These Democrats want to have it both ways. If the war goes well – a
lot of them voted for war with Iraq, didn't they? But if the war does
not go well, many of the very Democrats who voted for the war
resolution will have emerged as leading spokesmen for the anti-war
position. A vote for the war, surrounded by Neville Chamberlain
foot-dragging, is a fraud.

The Neville Chamberlain Democrats are now claiming they didn't realize
what they were voting for. John Kerry says he thought a resolution
authorizing the president to use force against Iraq meant that the
United Nations would have to approve. Dianne Feinstein said she voted
for the resolution assuming it meant we would invade only if "our
allies" approved. Joe Biden made the terrific argument that if we
don't wait for U.N. approval, it would "make a mockery of the efficacy
of the U.N." The Democrats appear to be the only people who still
believe in the "efficacy of the U.N." In any event, I believe the
United Nations should be more worried about that eventuality than we
should.

Kerry claims he is still foursquare behind disarming Saddam Hussein,
but not "until we have exhausted the remedies available, built
legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of
course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action." As George Bush
pointed out in his State of the Union address, dictators are not in
the habit of "politely putting us on notice before they strike." By
the time a threat is "imminent," Chicago will be gone.

That's the short version. The long version of Kerry's position is
this:

"[i]f you have a breach that, by everybody's standard, at least in the
United States, those of us in the House and Senate, and the president,
join together and make a judgment, this is indeed a material breach,
and then others – some of them can't be persuaded – if we have
evidence, sufficient to show the materiality of the breach, we should
be able to do what Adlai Stevenson did on behalf of the
administration, Kennedy administration, and sit in front of the
Security Council and say, 'Here is the evidence. It's time for all of
you to put up. We need to all do this together.' And that's what I
think the resolution that was passed suggests."

There's a rallying cry to unite the Democrats! If there has been a
material breach "by everybody's standard," then and only then, we can
boldly ... go to the United Nations! This is the fundamental problem
of the anti-war movement. They can't bring themselves to say it's a
mistake to depose Saddam Hussein, and "don't hurry" is not really a
call to arms.

But why not hurry? Democrats claim they haven't seen proof yet that
Saddam is a direct threat to the United States. For laughs, let's
suppose they're right. In the naysayers' worst-case scenario, the
United States would be acting precipitously to remove a ruthless
dictator who tortures his own people. As Bush said, after detailing
some of Saddam Hussein's charming practices: "If this is not evil,
then evil has no meaning." It's not as if anyone is worried that we're
making a horrible miscalculation and could be removing the Iraqi
Abraham Lincoln by mistake.

Either we're removing a dictator who currently has plans to fund
terrorism against American citizens or – if Bush is completely wrong
and Eleanor Clift is completely right – we're just removing a dictator
who plans to terrorize a lot of people in the region, but not
Americans specifically. Even for someone like me, who doesn't want
America to be the world's policeman, the risk of precipitous action
against Saddam Hussein doesn't keep me up at night.

The Democrats' jejune claim that Saddam Hussein is not a threat to our
security presupposes they would care if he were. Who are they kidding?
Democrats adore threats to the United States. Bush got a raucous
standing ovation at his State of the Union address when he announced
that "this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a
defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles." The
excitement was noticeably muted on the Democrats' side of the aisle.
The vast majority of Democrats remained firmly in their seats, sullen
at the thought that America would be protected from incoming ballistic
missiles. To paraphrase George Bush: If this is not treason, then
treason has no meaning.

Can you take this to the Ann.Coulter.smartest.woman.in.america or the
Ann.Coulter.dumbest.woman.in.america newsgroups?

Steve Bralla wrote:
Can you take this to the Ann.Coulter.smartest.woman.in.america or the
Ann.Coulter.dumbest.woman.in.america newsgroups?

Obviously, from the latter.

Hey guys, give it a rest.

:-)


At 16:42 22 September 2003, Marc Ramsey wrote:

'JJ Sinclair' wrote...
JJ, can you provide a quote from a single email in
this thread where anyone
(including myself) criticized the troops in Iraq?

Its the tone of your remarks, Mark. You took a tribute
and turned it into a
political statement.

You are entitled to your interpretation. My interpretation
is that Dan Ross
(who is not a member of Baker Company) made an unrelated
post to this group,
which contained a link to a valid tribute, along with
his own political
statement. Yes, my tone wasn't 'nice', but I am damned
angry at what the Bush
administration is doing to this country (including
putting troops in harms way
based on crackpot-quality intelligence), and if someone
makes a post based upon
these known fantasies, I'm going to respond.

Marc

;-)



At 04:48 23 September 2003, Marc Ramsey wrote:

'Andy Blackburn' wrote...
Hey guys, give it a rest.

Why? Soaring season is pretty much over here, we need
to talk about something
other than how motorgliders are the spawn of the devil...

;-) Marc